Suppr超能文献

运用临界值法比较三所医学院校毕业时客观结构化临床考试的及格标准。

Using borderline methods to compare passing standards for OSCEs at graduation across three medical schools.

作者信息

Boursicot Katharine A M, Roberts Trudie E, Pell Godfrey

机构信息

Centre for Medical Education, Barts and the London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London, London, UK.

出版信息

Med Educ. 2007 Nov;41(11):1024-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02857.x.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Medical schools in the UK set their own graduating examinations and pass marks. In a previous study we examined the equivalence of passing standards using the Angoff standard-setting method. To address the limitation this imposed on that work, we undertook further research using a standard-setting method specifically designed for objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs).

METHODS

Six OSCE stations were incorporated into the graduating examinations of 3 of the medical schools that took part in the previous study. The borderline group method (BGM) or borderline regression method (BRM) was used to derive the pass marks for all stations in the OSCE. We compared passing standards at the 3 schools. We also compared the results within the schools with their previously generated Angoff pass marks.

RESULTS

The pass marks derived using the BGM or BRM were consistent across 2 of the 3 schools, whereas the third school generated pass marks which were (with a single exception) much lower. Within-school comparisons of pass marks revealed that in 2 schools the pass marks generally did not significantly differ using either method, but for 1 school the Angoff mark was consistently and significantly lower than the BRM.

DISCUSSION

The pass marks set using the BGM or BRM were more consistent across 2 of the 3 medical schools than pass marks set using the Angoff method. However, 1 medical school set significantly different pass marks from the other 2 schools. Although this study is small, we conclude that passing standards at different medical schools cannot be guaranteed to be equivalent.

摘要

背景

英国的医学院自行设置毕业考试及及格分数。在之前的一项研究中,我们使用安格夫标准设定方法检验了及格标准的等效性。为解决该方法给此项研究带来的局限性,我们采用一种专门为客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)设计的标准设定方法进行了进一步研究。

方法

在之前参与研究的3所医学院的毕业考试中纳入了6个OSCE考站。使用临界组法(BGM)或临界回归法(BRM)得出OSCE中所有考站的及格分数。我们比较了这3所学校的及格标准。我们还将学校内部的结果与其之前得出的安格夫及格分数进行了比较。

结果

使用BGM或BRM得出的及格分数在3所学校中的2所是一致的,而第三所学校得出的及格分数(仅有一个例外)要低得多。学校内部及格分数的比较显示,在2所学校中,使用任何一种方法得出的及格分数通常没有显著差异,但对于1所学校而言,安格夫分数始终显著低于BRM分数。

讨论

与使用安格夫方法设定的及格分数相比,使用BGM或BRM设定的及格分数在3所医学院中的2所更为一致。然而,有1所医学院设定的及格分数与其他2所学校有显著差异。尽管这项研究规模较小,但我们得出结论,不同医学院的及格标准无法保证等效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验